What, exactly, are the folks in this thread proposing the impact of quad core is going to be on 95% of what people do with their computers? Is Firefox going to load pages 4 times as fast? Is Office going to make letters appear on the screen before you type them? Will your emails fly off your computer like missiles? Will your music sound better?

Right now and for some time to come, the impact will be minimal for most users, no doubt about it. But if Apple is serious about pushing the new SL optimization technologies to exploit the hardware potential at its maximum, then it absolutely needs to introduce quad core computers for the masses (the Mac Pro is for really few people). Otherwise the developers will have little interest to invest in the new technologies.

So you think people who buy Apple's wares are stupid, you have nothing but contempt for anyone who thinks otherwise, yet here you are, posting angrily on an Apple enthusiast site.

I would urge you to figure out what you like, even love, and think about that. Talk to people who share your interests. It's really a better way to live. Goodbye.

Umm, who's the one that started the argument that people don't read specs, I do believe that was you. You are the one who started with the insulting comments, I was simply trying to carry on a lively debate to your point that people should just be happy with whatever Apple throws out there.

I've happily bought Macs over the years including an Apple iBook, Mac Mini, and a black Macbook most recently. I buy Apple when they make sense, and when their products are competitive to the rest of the personal computer market. I haven't bought anything from them for awhile because their incremental upgrades over the last 4 years are not worth the upgrade price. When they decide to offer something truly revolutionary again, then I will buy in again. I did just buy Snow Leopard recently, and so far its better than Leopard, but I still am getting a lot of application crashes with Adobe CS4 applications. So Apple isn't the king $hit. So far CS4 has been a lot more stable on Windows 7. That it just my experience, but that is comparing the results of two clean installs, so Apple has some catching up to do. In my opinion, OS X 10.4 was their best and most stable operating system to date and it is what we run on our PowerMac G5s at work. I have maybe one support call a week with those machines and usually it's software and not hardware related.

Just because you want to play Apple fanboy and I take a more moderate view of Apple based on their merits, doesn't make me any less pro-Apple or make me an angry poster.

Perhaps you only look at synthetic benchmarks. but if you ever read REAL tests from Anandtech and others, you will see that real world performance rarely has anything to do with those.

Your splitting hairs with that remark. Show me your evidence that any one performance testing suite or method is better than another. Test results collected from many users of a performance suite is going to give a much broader and more real-world look into the performance of various chips in various systems - especially over the basic batch tests, by one author, on one specific machine like Anandtech does. Geekbench, which also collects tests from their users, also show a similar trend that the Intel Core i7 processors provide better performance than Xeons in desktop and workstation scenarios.

I made one pessimistic post above, but when I think about that we really should cool down and wait and see what Apple actually delivers. The last MacBook transition to Pros was a pretty successful step. I think those laptops are good value for the money. Apparently lots of people agree.

Even if the "Core 2 Duo" part turns out to be true for all updated iMacs, we still know nothing about the other part of the equation: the price. Apple may decide to go the MacBook route, being even more aggressive and competitive in the mid-range with a slight speed bump/price cut for the high-end, with a new high-end models coming later, say, January. I am too lazy to investigate the Intel roadmap to check how this strategy would align with their roadmap, but it makes sense for the holiday season, dominated by the low-to-mid range purchases.

I don't think the iPhone argument works here. as soon as the new iMacs came out, sales went up by a good percentage. That was too coincidental.

Anytime a new form generation of any Mac product comes out, sales % goes up. I surely don't have explain the reasoning for that to you- do I?
We're talking over the last 2 years here anyway.
Also the switch to Intel cause tons of switchers as well. People want a MAc but have had no choice in matte. That is until now.

if they go and put in a built in blu-ray they are backpedaling on this issue.

I wouldn't be so sure they call it a mistake. After all, how many computers have they sold recently.
and before you bring up the whole LED display as an example, remember that it lacks a lot of the innards of an imac so it simply has no need for 'the chin'. and that could be why that detail is lacking

Backpedalling? What do you call the return of matte sacreen and firewire then? Groundhogs Day?

It's interesting that one of the first things he mentions in subtle changes in screen size (half inches), which might suggest a move to LED, which is not the first thing someone would make up if they were pulling the whole thing out of thin air.

One reason I love these forums... I actually thought people were wrong that the back of the current iMacs were black plastic. I was a little embarrassed to peek back there and realize, for the first time, how not-exactly-beautiful the rear end is.

So once Apple went all glossy they started selling ever more iMacs and laptops even though everybody hates them, because that's all the could get. So I guess we could use the old "the would have sold even more if they had offered matte", because there's no way on earth to test that for truth.

I think you are venturing into your own post hoc fallacy here. Based on the publicly available information, I don't think we can safely conclude anything about whether glossy has fueled sales, or whether matte would have sold more.

It could be that the majority of buyers are completely indifferent to the issue but just want a Mac and that Apple's marketing and image have made it an increasingly compelling choice irrespective of the type of display. It could be that people are attracted to the glossy screens but, then, annoyed by them after living with them for a while. It could be that most people actually love the glossy screen and aren't bothered by it at all.

About the most we can safely conclude is that, for those who bought a glossy Mac, is that the glossy screen was not a deal breaker for them at the time of purchase -- i.e., they bought it with a glossy screen.

Right now and for some time to come, the impact will be minimal for most users, no doubt about it. But if Apple is serious about pushing the new SL optimization technologies to exploit the hardware potential at its maximum, then it absolutely needs to introduce quad core computers for the masses (the Mac Pro is for really few people). Otherwise the developers will have little interest to invest in the new technologies.

Yikes! What's wrong with you man, the numeric keyboard is a MUST have... you can always order the smaller one instead.

I never use it. I ordered by iMac with the smaller keyboard but I missed pageup/pagedown and cursor keys too much so I went to Apple Store and bought a long one. But now the numeric keypad sticks out and makes my mousepad hang off the side of the desk. Both of Apple's solutions don't match my needs.

I think you are venturing into your own post hoc fallacy here. Based on the publicly available information, I don't think we can safely conclude anything about whether glossy has fueled sales, or whether matte would have sold more.

True.

Quote:

It could be that the majority of buyers are completely indifferent to the issue but just want a Mac and that Apple's marketing and image have made it an increasingly compelling choice irrespective of the type of display. It could be that people are attracted to the glossy screens but, then, annoyed by them after living with them for a while. It could be that most people actually love the glossy screen and aren't bothered by it at all.

Maybe. But one thing we should know is that Apple hasn't stumbled into this blindly, and that know how buyers respond to various features. One of the reasons why Apple has managed to succeed is precisely because they do have a handle on these issues.

Quote:

About the most we can safely conclude is that, for those who bought a glossy Mac, is that the glossy screen was not a deal breaker for them at the time of purchase -- i.e., they bought it with a glossy screen.

You are taking this one step too far, I think. it's easy to conclude that one or another feature produces hostility or indifference, but where's the evidence? Not geek ranting in places like this, I hope. That would be, as you called it -- a post hoc fallacy.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything but for the life of me I can't think of any reason to put a computer on a kitchen counter where it might come into contact with water. Please explain, I'm dying of curiosity here.

IT
FITS
UNDER
THE
KITCHEN
COUNTER
13 '1N UP
OFF
THE COUNTER
AND
AS
YOU
COOK
YOU
CAN
SURF

It's interesting that one of the first things he mentions in subtle changes in screen size (half inches), which might suggest a move to LED, which is not the first thing someone would make up if they were pulling the whole thing out of thin air.

The 25.5" sounds interesting but if Apple keeps the 24" as a mid-range iMac and I can get most of the goods with that model that's what I will be looking at. And now that we finally moved on the 64-bits MacOS the 12GB max RAM is a no brainer. However, I don't see how they do it with laptop parts... on the other hand I didn't follow the latest in PC hardware development either.

As for Blu-ray all I need is an OS & "DVD" player update with the support.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything but for the life of me I can't think of any reason to put a computer on a kitchen counter where it might come into contact with water. Please explain, I'm dying of curiosity here.

Funny, but the first thing I thought of is what about all the grease in the kitchen. I can see how you can keep it out of water by not putting it near water or up off the counter, but if you do any frying or cooking on the stove top, even with good ventilation, a tiny film of grease gets EVERYWHERE.

Apple really needs to put in quad core chips in this new line up. But I have a feeling that we will be waiting for that a little longer... who knows though. I like and at the same-time dislike Apples constant form over function aesthetics..I totally admire the slim design of the macbooks, and iMac lines, but dammit people want power too. But they just can't squeeze hotter running chips into their casings. It would defeat there designs.

Now with this Grand central tech... the doors have opened up hopefully for more than 2 cores in all of their HW.

Four Atom processors and a virtual screen projected onto atomized mist with a laser from a stylish mini-sized base machined from a single piece of platinum.....

You are taking this one step too far, I think. it's easy to conclude that one or another feature produces hostility or indifference, but where's the evidence? Not geek ranting in places like this, I hope. That would be, as you called it -- a post hoc fallacy.

Well, yes, I should have stated that, "... the most we can justifiably conclude ..."

I think it's a pretty safe conclusion that Apple knows what they are doing. However, by indifference, I do not mean something produced as a reaction to something, but just the opposite: that the feature does not provoke a reaction in them at all. In other words the possibility that glossy screens are not a factor, positive or negative, in most people's decision to buy a Mac.

Basically, I'm just saying that, in the absence of some actual objective data on this subject, claims about the benefits or detriments of glossy screens on sales are speculative.

You mean any reason other than the fact that the mobile i7 tops out at 2.0GHz and costs $1000 while the desktop goes up to 3.33GHz and is priced firmly in 3 digit territory.

Nobody wants a better processor at a lower price do they?

Geez. It's these kinds of perceptions that would allow Apple to get away with using Core 2 Duo Again.

Bregalad, the MID-RANGE i7 Clarksfield quad-core (which has 8 threads with hyperthreading) sells for about the same price as the current Core 2 Duo's being put into the iMac (around $550).

Now you might say that the current Core 2 Duo's have way higher clock speeds, well... the new MID-RANGE i7 Clarksfield quad-cores have turbo boost, which can ramp the clock speeds of 1-2 of its cores up to 3+ GHz. Not to mention those two cores in the Clarksfield are hyperthreaded, and far more efficient/ powerful than the same clock speed in a Core 2 Duo.

I'm quite aware that current iMacs use mobile parts thank you. You are talking about one use case for an iMac - consumers. Because Apple doesn't release the numbers, we have no idea exactly who purchases the greater share of iMacs, but I would be willing to bet that would be graphics design or similar professionals that buy it because it's not worth spending the cash on Mac Pros. Most consumers would choose to buy a Macbook rather than a desktop-based Mac. So in this case, are you really going to tell me that these people wouldn't enjoy a more powerful desktop at a reasonable price point? Plus with the Grand Central technology in Snow Leopard, what point is there in sticking to a duo-core processor? Apple is the first one to tout the performance of their systems compared other competing systems, so I don't think I'm too far off base to criticize them on the lack of performance of their desktop based systems, especially when they choose to push a mobile parts based system against the more traditional desktops out there.

Thank you!!!

I'm a designer and I haven't bought a new MAC since I was in college (5 years!!). I'm still on a freakin 1ghz EMAC and a newer ibook! Apple have been neglecting the design community, we were the bread and butter of their customers, but ever since Apple found the trendy market, they have forgotten their nerdy friends.

Apple needs to realize the difference between a laptop and a desktop.
I want an iMac with power, that's the point of a desktop morons!

I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything but for the life of me I can't think of any reason to put a computer on a kitchen counter where it might come into contact with water. Please explain, I'm dying of curiosity here.

You haven't seen my kitchen. The spot where I want it is at least 10 feet away from any water source. Great for looking up recipes, listening to iTunes, quick check of the financials in the morning while making coffee, and since I have TV coax right there, with Elgato I could even tune into a live broadcast while enjoying my new HUGE awesome American over the top kitchen.

They need to either price these things well below $1000 or put quad cores in them. One can only hope that quad imacs will be the norm by the end of the year. Otherwise it really is pretty pathetic when you look closely at your options.

Apple needs to realize the difference between a laptop and a desktop.
I want an iMac with power, that's the point of a desktop morons![/QUOTE]

This is exactly my point!!! There has to something between a MacPro and an iMac!
I don't want a 3 to 4 thousand dollar desktop BUT I don't want a desktop with laptop parts in it either. There has to be smaller version of the MacPro that has desktop power and componets. Something of a mid range desktop.... NOT an Mac Mini either......

Tallest Skil:

"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse" "The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."

A purely U.S. thing. No one in Europe does this in the kitchen. No one at least I know personally, I have read or heard about.

So, no, he is not kidding. For the rest of us it is something really unusual.

Not sure, Jeremy Clarkson has a computer in his kitchen... He's a PURE brit. Forget which episode I saw it but a shot of his kitchen there was a PC on the counter... Maybe it was May...

I've had a G3 iMac in mine until we swapped it out for a laptop. Could be the average US home is over 1800 sqft and for whatever reason parties tend to congregate into the kitchen (probably why we are all so fat ). We used AirTunes from the iMac to play music out at the pool while letting iPhoto run through a slide show as a picture frame kinda thing.

Basically, I'm just saying that, in the absence of some actual objective data on this subject, claims about the benefits or detriments of glossy screens on sales are speculative.

I can agree with that. I'd add that Apple does hear consumer complaints, and responds when they think it will improve their bottom line. We can safely assume they have some objective evidence for these decisions. What we hear so often in these discussions, is that if Apple doesn't respond to any one individuals desires or complaints, that they must be clueless.

There has to something between a MacPro and an iMac!
I don't want a 3 to 4 thousand dollar desktop BUT I don't want a desktop with laptop parts in it either. There has to be smaller version of the MacPro that has desktop power and componets. Something of a mid range desktop.... NOT an Mac Mini either......

There's only $300 dollars between the top of the line iMac and the bottom of the line Mac Pro (which, admittedly, does not include a display), so it's not like there's a whole lot of room there, price-wise. How much would you expect to pay for this machine?

I can agree with that. I'd add that Apple does hear consumer complaints, and responds when they think it will improve their bottom line. We can safely assume they have some objective evidence for these decisions. What we hear so often in these discussions, is that if Apple doesn't respond to any one individuals desires or complaints, that they must be clueless.

Pure speculation on my part, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the ONLY reason Apple brought back the matte finish on any of the current models was to prevent defection or default on large, open purchase orders.

After all, specs on PO's are just that.

Just my $1.25 worth...

Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.

It's interesting that one of the first things he mentions in subtle changes in screen size (half inches), which might suggest a move to LED, which is not the first thing someone would make up if they were pulling the whole thing out of thin air.

At least the indication is Clarksfield which is more along the lines of what I think needs to be in there.